" It is clearly seen with the Asics 33. It was created to "work with the foot, and not against it" yet they believe in motion control and not motion enhancement"

Ahhh.. I think you might have this the wrong way round Nick!
In June of 1998 I first used the expression "Motion Enhancement, not Motion Control", at a lecture to a group of post graduate physiotherapy srudents at The University of South Australia. ASICS completely dropped the term Motion Control from their vocabulary in 2002. It has NEVER been used since.
At the SMA Conference in 2006, I had a discussion with Irene Davis on this issue. At this time she was very vocal that running shoes should control the foot and that everyone should wear orthoses. I told her I did not beleive the scienc supported that notion at that time. I even showed her a video I had had made, with the words "motion control" being flushed down a toilet, complete with sound effects. Irene told me I was wrong. She has apparently since changed her mind.
I have been espousing a less is more philosophy for at least 15 years.. ASICS has been committed to this for a similar timeframe. No matter what you may think Nick, ASICS always adheres to the current published science. This is the reason ASICS has not gone down the minimalist path. I will not let them, just as I would not let them persue toning shoes. Time will tell if I am wrong or right.
On anothe matter.. nice photos Kevin.. it is scary how good you and SImon's memories are, and even scarier to see how awesome my paper jet was.
On another note, I believe every company has a pretty poor representation of how to match current footwear to foottype, not the least ASICS. I cringe at some of the stuff I read ,and really wonder at the message it sends to both medical and consumer. Currently, the whole concept of "categorisation" of product is at best wishfull thinking at worst deceitful. I hate it, and I applaud Blaise for at least having a shot at trying something different. I do not agree with it, but nor do I agree with the RW effort either ( nor for that matter do I agree with ASICS).
In my oprinion, this whole thing should be thrown out with the extremely murky bathwater.. the concepts of motion control, cushioning, structure cushioning, maximum support, minimalism, barefoot etc blah, blah should all be abandoned because they really represent nothing.
I would like to see a video base representation of the spectrum of human movement, of biomechanical variability, sex, age gender, and athletic ability, and a representation of what might.. just might, in the continuum from barefoot to very supportive footwear, work for each athelte. This is very difficult to demonstate in print media, and is spmething I have struggled with for years. I will continue.
Finally, there is a very recent paper looking at energy costs barefoot vs shod .... (Metabolic Cost of Running Barefoot versus Shod: Is Lighter Better? Jason R. Franz, Corbyn M. Wierzbinski, and Rodger Kram, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Publish Ahead of Print, February 12th 2012 )Could this be the final nail in the coffin for the last supposed credible argument of the barefoot movement. I will leave you asll to be the judges.. I tried to attach the paper for you, but since I am at ASICS HQ in the USA, they are blocking my outgoings to prevent me telling our secrets to the world! Anyone who need a pdf of the full paper can contact me privately